Chronic paroxysmal hemicrania (CPH), which also causes short headache attacks, but mostly in women.

Chronic paroxysmal hemicrania and episodic paroxysmal hemicrania are variants of cluster headaches.

Chronic paroxysmal hemicrania (CPH), also known as Sjaastad syndrome, is a severe debilitating unilateral headache, usually affecting the area around the eye.

Chronic paroxysmal hemicrania (CPH) is a condition similar to cluster headache, but CPH responds well to treatment with the anti-inflammatory drug indomethacin and the attacks are much shorter, often lasting only seconds.

Included in the differential diagnosis of a new onset nighttime headaches in the elderly is drug withdrawal, temporal arteritis, Sleep apnea, oxygen desaturated, Pheochromocytoma, intracranial causes, primary and secondary neoplasms, communicating hydrocephalus, subdural hematoma, vascular lesions, migraines, cluster headaches, chronic paroxysmal hemicrania and hypnic headache.

Chronic paroxysmal hemicrania (CPH), also known as Sjaastad syndrome, is a severe debilitating unilateral headache, usually affecting the area around the eye.

The issue of age was first addressed with the critical period hypothesis.

These views are closely associated with the critical period hypothesis.

The idea that there may be an age by which this learning must be accomplished is known as the critical period hypothesis.

Brain signatures of artificial language processing: Evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis.

This was called the "critical period hypothesis."

The critical period hypothesis was proposed by linguist Eric Lenneberg in 1967.

The combined research on these cases has furthered the research in the critical period hypothesis in language acquisition.

See Critical period hypothesis.

"The critical period hypothesis holds that first language acquisition must occur before cerebral lateralization is complete, at about the age of puberty.

In second-language acquisition, the strongest evidence for the critical period hypothesis is in the study of accent, where most older learners do not reach a native-like level.

However, general second-language research has failed to support the critical period hypothesis in its strong form (i.e., the claim that full language acquisition is impossible beyond a certain age).

The critical period hypothesis states that the first few years of life is the crucial time in which an individual can acquire a first language if presented with adequate stimuli.

The last message before the screen turns black and the credits appear, reads: "Katie's inability to master a language proved the legitimacy of the Critical Period Hypothesis".

Bellugi informs Schaller that she has strong reservations that Ildefonso can lean language due to the Critical Period Hypothesis.

The critical period hypothesis is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age.

Genie's case has also been used in theorizing about whether the critical period hypothesis can be applied to the acquisition of a second language, a topic which remains the subject of considerable debate.

Research suggests that it becomes inaccessible at a certain age (see Critical Period Hypothesis), and learners increasingly depended on explicit teaching (see pedagogical effects above, and age below).

The book is the study of a 27-year-old deaf man whom Schaller teaches how to speak for the first time, challenging the Critical Period Hypothesis which essentially states that humans cannot learn language after a certain age.

In addition, the Critical Period Hypothesis states that younger learners have certain advantages over older learners in language learning that allows them to learn L2 easily and quickly in comparison to older children.

Some variation in grammatical performance is attributed to maturation (discussed in B. Harley, 1986), however, all participants began immersion programs before puberty and so were too young for a strong critical period hypothesis to be directly tested.

These are especially duration of deafness prior to implantation, age of onset of deafness, age at implantation (such age effects may be related to the Critical period hypothesis) and the duration of using an implant.

The Critical Period Hypothesis states that the first few years of life constitute the time during which language develops readily and after which (sometime between age 5 and puberty) language acquisition is much more difficult and ultimately less successful.

Generally, the later in life a learner approaches the study of a foreign language, the harder it is to acquire receptive (auditory) comprehension and fluent production (speaking) skills; however, the Critical Period Hypothesis is a hotly debated topic.

The impaired ability to learn a formal language after having been isolated for so many years is often attributed to the existence of a critical period for language learning, and taken as evidence in favor of the critical period hypothesis.

The critical period hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder Penfield and co-author Lamar Roberts in a 1959 paper Speech and Brain Mechanisms, and was popularised by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with Biological Foundations of Language.